At 5:06 PM 2/20/97, Gladwin Joseph wrote:> If Sience can neither rule in or rule out supernatural> involvement David implies that it is Neutral in its> claims. Is an argument for Intelligent Design then based on> an alternative assumption that Science is not essentially> neutral? That interpretations are necessarily based on one's> underlying assumptions of the universe. I am curious to> know whether Science indeed can be neutral in all> disciplines or is it held in some tension between Neutrality> and Bias? Does it move towards either end depending on the> discipline one is involved in or does one's discipline> provide a particular context for Science? Therefore the> claims in that particular context may vary in their> apparent degree of neutrality or bias. It seems like yet> another paradox in our human epistemological constructs.

My take on this issue is that while science can in principle be neutral, we
cannot assume that scientists are neutral. We all have a way of looking
for confirmation of our deeply held beliefs in what we observe.